Benchmark WA Industrial Relations Case Database

MATTHEWS HEARD : MONDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2017 DELIVERED : MONDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2017

(2017) 97 WAIG Single Commissioner (WAIRC) 2017-09-11
Source
Not yet cited by other cases
APPLICANT: MATTHEWS HEARD : MONDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2017 DELIVERED : MONDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2017 FILE NO. : C 28 OF 2017 BETWEEN : WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, CLERICAL AND SERVICES UNION OF EMPLOYEES
RESPONDENT: COMMUNITY LIVING ASSOCIATION INC
This case hasn't been analysed yet.
Generate ratio, outcome, key facts, concept tags and cited-case edges. Takes ~15–30 seconds.
Sign in to analyse

Authority signal

Not yet cited by other cases Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Concept tags · 3

[P]s44 referral of industrial matter (WA) [S]Unfair dismissal (WA) [S]Unfair dismissal (federal)
Archived text (322 words)
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION : 2017 WAIRC 00825 CORAM : COMMISSIONER D J MATTHEWS HEARD : MONDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2017 DELIVERED : MONDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2017 FILE NO. : C 28 OF 2017 BETWEEN : WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, CLERICAL AND SERVICES UNION OF EMPLOYEES Applicant AND COMMUNITY LIVING ASSOCIATION INC. Respondent CatchWords : Industrial Law (WA) - Dispute over possible termination of employment - Employer entitled to continue disciplinary proceedings - Unless allegations baseless proceedings should not be interfered with Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s 44, s 44(6), (ba)(i) Result : Application dismissed Representation: Applicant : Ms B Tussler and with her Mr G Upham Respondent : Ms A Woods of counsel Solicitors: Respondent : DLA Piper Australia Case referred to in reasons: Civil Service Association of Western Australia Inc v. Director General of Department for Community Development [2002] WASCA 241 Reasons for Decision 1 The applicant’s member, Mr Xiaomen Peng, was employed by the respondent as at the date of the conference held under section 44 Industrial Relations Act 1979, but had been informed that her employment was to end on 14 September 2017. 2 The application for a conference was brought by the applicant so that submissions could be made to the respondent as to why Ms Peng ought not be dismissed on 14 September 2017 and, if those submissions failed, to seek an order from me staying the decision to dismiss Ms Peng until the matter was fully heard and determined. 3 The respondent did not agree to countermand its decision and an order was sought from me. I declined to grant the order and these are my reasons for doing so. 4 An employer is entitled to commence disciplinary proceedings against an employee where it sees fit to do so and, unless the allegations made are demonstrated to be baseless, those proceedings ought to be allowed to conclude without interference by the